--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/21/06 7:56:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Otherwise, why not say "Almost Nobody"?
> 
> I could have said that,  and I believe I have in
> other posts. But I started the sentence  with
> "Nobody," and then I thought, Well, I don't know
> about Bhairitu; I  don't want to attribute views
> to him that he does not hold. So I stuck  in
> "maybe Bhairitu" as a qualifier, figuring he'd
> speak up either way.  And he did.
> 
> Exactly. You bated Bhairitu. He had to come to his own defense

I didn't bait him, and there was nothing to defend
as far as I was concerned; it wasn't an accusation
or a criticism.  I respect the view that wiretaps
are inherently Not a Good Thing.  I personally feel
we'd be better off if we didn't use them at all.

So I'm actually sympathetic to the point of view I
suggested a more idealistic person, like Bhairitu,
might hold.  The only difference between it and my
own view is that I'm willing to compromise privacy
rights as long as there is judicial oversight.

> and deny  your implication.

It wasn't an implication.  I said it right out.

> And if you didn't want to attribute views to him that he  
> doesn't hold, you wouldn't have mentioned him by name in
> the first place. Also  if your intention was never to imply 
> Bhairitu held a certain view

"Imply" is the wrong word here.  My point was that
some more idealistic people might well oppose
wiretapping with or without warrants, just on 
principle.  And as I say, I respect that view.  I
cited Barry because he's more idealistic than 
most people.

> I think I would feel somewhat "used" if I were Bhairitu
> for being nudged to have to clarify my own views or have
> others possibly think otherwise because of  what 
> somebody else said.

I doubt Bhairitu feels "used," but if he does, I
apologize to him.  As I said, generally he and I
are on the same side, and I'm pretty sure he knows
that.

> That, is baring false witness, a lie.

Not with the "maybe" it isn't.

< But Judy  don't get me 
> wrong, I thought what you said was in jest and never took it 
> seriously. Only your adamant denial caused me to dwell on it
> and look at your  comment a little more critically.

"Adamant denial" of *WHAT*??  Of your idiot notion
that I was lying about Barry's views?

Get your head on straight, for goodness' sake.  If
this is the best you can do to try to equate me with
Republicans, you might as well give up, because you're
demolishing your own case.

In fact, you're behaving *just like* the Republicans
I'm criticizing, trying to twist my words to make it
appear that I'm the bad guy.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to